Exemption No.1 0051

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT ATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMlNISTRATION

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057-3356

In the matter of the petition of

Lufthansa Technik AG

for an exemption from § 26.47 of Title 14,

Code of FederaJ Regulations

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-1241

PARTIAL GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By a submission to the Depm1ment of Transportation's Federal Docket Mm1agement System

(FOMS) dated December 9,2009, Mr. Jochen Volkmar of Lufthansa Technik AG (LHT),

Postfach 63-03-00, D~22313, Hamburg, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

for an exemption from the reqllirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

26.47. Section 26.47 requirements rclate to the development of damage tolerance data for

alterations and repairs to alterations. Lufthansa requests this exemption for supplemental type

certificate (STC)-approved design changes installed on pnvate use (not for hire, not for common

carriage) airplanes. The affected STCs are listed in Table 1.

Table 1

Supplemental Type Certificates for which Lufthansa Technik AG Seeks

Exemptiou from 14 CFR 26.47

STC# Oeseriptio" Issue Date Limitation; ACI Model

Exem lion

ST0220JNY Installation of a VIP Cabin Interior 12.01.2006 on STC 747-400

~~)7NY UAE 747 Com lelion, EASA U ade Kit 27.10.2006 on STC 747-400

STOl837NY VIP Cabin Com letion (EAGLE) 02.12.2003 on STC 737-800

STOl845NY VIP Cabin Com lelion EVERGREEN) 18.12.2003 on STC 737-700JGW

it02000NY VIP Cabin Com !clion (MIDROC) 28.09.2004 on STC 737.800

ST02096NY Installation ofa VIP Foxecutive interior.,. 24,05,2005 on STC 737-IOOlC,W

ST02675NY VIP Cabin Com letioll 29,01.2009 on STC 737-70{)IGW

ST00742SE installation arVIP Cabin Interior ... 07.10.1999 7029 737700lGW

STOl276NY Installation or a VIP Cabi" Interior 27.02.2001 7317 777-200

STOl341NY Saudi Oger VIP Cabin Installation I (13B1) 18,04.2001 7475 737-70010\V

5T01381 NY NetJe! VIP-Cabin Installation (0131) 24.08.2001 7572 737-7001GW

STOl460NY Saudi 0 er VI!' Cabill InstallaLion (BElJ) 11.02.2002 6820 737-800
The petitioner requests reHef from the following regulation:

§ 26.47 Holders of and applicants for a supplemental type certificate ~ Alterations and

repairs to alterations, which requires development of damage tolerance data for alterations and

repairs to alterations.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

This section quotes the relevant infom1ation from the petitioner's request. The complete petition

is aVaJlable at FDMS, on the internet at http://www.regualtions.gov, in Docket No. FAA-2009-

1241.

Reasons Why the Exemption Would Not Adversely Affect Public

Safety

The listed STCs are restricted to private use only, as stated in the limitation section of the

STCs or related exemptions. Aircraft operation is neither performed under § 121 or

§ 129, nor will the operator adopt maintenance requirements specified in § 121.1109.

A change from private to commercial operation would require an amendment to any of

these operationally limited STCs. This process would be followed by the FAA and

would consequently resull in consideration of 14 CFR part 26 requirements.

Reason the Exemption Would Benefit the Public Interest

Granting the petition for exemption would be in the public interest because it would

significantly reduce workload on FAA side. FUl1hennore the generalion of the DT data

for these aircraft would be very costly to LHT, with no perspective of compensation.

Federal Register publication

The FAA has detennined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal Register

publication because the exemption, if granted, would not set a precedent, and is similar to

previously granted exemptions on this subject.

The FAA's analysis

The FAA has developed criteria to consider when deciding whether to grant or dellY a design

approval holder's (DAH) petition for exemption from part 26 requirements. These critelia are

meant as a general guide to making decisions about such requests and were not developed for

any specific request. The FAA uses these criteria as a starting point for making its decision.

However, other factors may also be considered before a final decision is made on any particular

exemption request.

The criteria are annotated in Table 2.

2
TabieZ

Criteria for Considering Eligibility for Exemption

from § 26.47

If the And And And Then

ainvorthiness

authority for the

state of design is

1 The FAA No airplanes are No airplanes are operating No airplanes are being The DAH

operating under part 121 under part 129 (N~ operated by a foreign air may be

and it is unlikely that any registered) and it is unlikely carrier and it is unlikely eligible for

will do so in the future3that any will do so in the that any will do so in the an

future3

future" exemption

2 The FAA Airplanes are operating Airplanes are operating Airplanes are being The DAH

under part 121 but no under part 129 (N- operated by a foreign air may be

airplanes will be registered) but no airplanes carrier but no airplanes eligible for

operated under part 121 will be operated under part will be operated by a on

after the operational rule 129 (N·registered) after the foreign air carrier after the exemption

compliance date I and it is operational rule compliance operational rule

unlikely that any will date 1 and it is unlikely that compliance date 1 and it is

return to such service in any will retwn to such unlikely that any will

the future} service in the future 3 return to such service in

the future3

3 Not the FAA No airplanes are No airplanes are operating The DAH

operating under part 121 under part 129 (N~ may be

and it is unlikely that any registered) and it is unlikely eligible for

will do so in the future} that any will do so in the eo

furure" exemption

4 Not the FAA Airplanes are operating Airplanes are operating TheDAH

under part 121 but no under part 129 (N- may be

airplanes will be registered) but no airplanes eligible for

operated under part 121 will be operated under part eo

after the operational rule 129 (N-registered) after the exemption

compliance date2and it is operational rule comp!.iance

unlikely that any will date 2 and it is unlikely that

return to such service in any will return to such

the future3

service in the future3

I

The design approval holder must demonstrate that these airplanes will not be operating under part 121 or part 129, or operated

by a foreign air carrier, after the operational rule compliance date by obtaining documentation of such from the current

owners/operators of the airplanes.

2 The design approval holder must demonstrate that these airplanes will not be operating under part 121 or part 129 after the

operational rule compliance date by obtaining documentation of such from the current owners/operators of the airplanes.

3 Arguments for the likelihood of an airplane not entering into air carrier service in the future should center on the airplane's age

and/or current contio-uration.

3
The determination of whether an airplane is operated under 14 CFR part 121 or 14 CFR part 129

is based on whether that particular airplane is listed on an air carrier's operations specifications.

The rationale behind the criteria contained in Table 2 is that the rule requires DABs to develop

data for use by operators. If there are no operators for a particular airplane, required by the rules

to use such data, it would be a poor use of resources for the DAH to develop it. Therefore, it

would benefit both the DAH and the public as a whole to spend resources on more important

safety issues rather than on developing data that will not be used. In addition, granting such an

exemption would not adversely affect safety because there are no airplanes that would be

required to incorporate the data, nor is it likely that there will be any in the future. In cases

where the FAA is the authority for the design and affected airplanes are operated by foreign air

carriers (or likely to do so in the future), the FAA does not grant exemptions from this rule, as

doing so may negatively impact an operator's ability to comply with an equivalent rule under

another airworthiness authority.

The FAA is the aifVolorthinessauthority for Lufthansa Technik AG's STC-approved design

changes (listed in Table I). The FAA has reviewed Lufthansa Technik AG's request, and has

determined that no affected airplanes are operating under part 121 or part 129 (US-registered);

however the FAA has determined that some of the airplanes affected by this request are not

limited to private use operations. For those STC-approved design changes on airplanes that are

not limited to private use operations (or the FAA was not able to confirm that airplane usage is

limited to private use), granting this exemption may have an adverse effect on public safety.

Therefore granting this exemption for STC-approved design changes installed on airplanes used

for hire or for common carriage would not be in the public interest.

The FAA was able to confirm that the STC-approved design changes listed in Table 3 are

installed on airplanes limited to private use (not for hire, not for common carriage). Therefore

granting this exemption for these airplanes would be in the public interest.

The Partial Grant of Exemption

In consideration of the foregoing, T find that a partial grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.c. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me

by the Administrator, Lufthansa Technik AG, is hereby granted an exemption from § 26.47 for

only those STC-approved design changes listed in Table 3, for the development of damage

tolerance data for alterations and repairs to alterations.

This exemption does not grant relief from the related operational requirements contained in

§ 121.1109 or § 129.109. Should a person choose to operate an airplane with STCwapproved

design changes (listed in Table 3) under part 121 or part 129 beyond the operational compliance

deadlines as stated in § 121.1109 or § 129.109, that person will be required to comply with those

operational requirements.

4
If Lufthansa Technik AG submits a petition for amendment to this exemption, with additional

data showing that the remaining airplanes with STC-approved design changes (listed in Table 1)

are currently operated exclusively in private use operation, and are unlikely to be operated by a

foreign air carrier in the futme, the FAA will consider Lufthansa Technik AG's request.

Table3

Supplemental Type Certificates for which the FAA Grants Exemption to

Lufthansa Technik AG from 14 CFR 26.47

STC# Descri lion Issue Dale ACIMooel

ST02307NY UAE 747 Com letion, EASA U rade Kit 27,10,2006 747400

ST01837NY VIP Cabin Com letion (EAGLE) 02.122003 737·800

ST0134INY Saudi 0 er VIP Cabin Installation I (BBJ) 18.04.2001 737-7001GW

STOl460NY Saudi 0 er VIP Cabin Installation (BBn 11.02.2002 737-800

Issued in Renton, Washington on APR 16 2010

;f¥;Jb

Ali Bahrami

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service

5